It’s because the majority of western movies about WW2 are made in the USA, and they absolutely believe it started when they arrived and the rest of the allies were there for moral support.
USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries also made a ton of movies about WWII. There are books, songs and whatnot about "The War". Guess what? - USA goes mostly unnoticed there. If anything then it was like "USA shipped us some old trucks and other supplies, and then they invented the Bomb and became evil incarnate."
I don't remember D-Day from my school history books.
I live within WWI and WWII military fortifications, my kids cycle in WWII trenches (they make fun singletracks) and my house suffered damage from Russians bombing our town in 1944. I lost my grandfathers to the war. USA ... is a remote thing compared to all the personal stuff.
Europe has as much of a Eurocentric outlook on the world as America has an America-centric one.
The main difference being Europe typically doesn't care much for anything going on outside it's brorders - why would it, when Europe is the Center of the Universe? - while America cares about anything anywhere but only in relation to itself - because of course it does, since the universe revoles around America.
They don't really care how America took the fight half way across the world to curb stomp Japan just like how Americans don't really care how France/Poland/others got ran over and occupied by Germany and said "fine whatever, we'll just keep mercilessly killing you from underground then"
Neither thing involved the other, so since it doesn't stroke their particular strain of national solipsism they're not concerned about it.
A lot of Americans do care how resilient Europe was. France got fucking rolled, but the resistance were slaughtering high ranking Nazis like James fucking Bond. Britain was getting raped in the Mediterranean and its planes were struggling to keep supplies - yet they prevailed and kept taking the fight to the Germans. Russia had its population massacred to the point they are still recovering to this day, and are still hailed as one of the top armies in the world. USA didnt have a dog in the fight until Japan fucked with us and dragged us into the war, so we went all in. I, as an American, greatly appreciate the sacrifices that every country made - however when I mention I'm American in historical conversation, the looks and groans that I get make me almost reconsider why we even fucking bothered. Europeans act ungrateful for the financial and material support the US gave throughout the war because we didnt immediately start sending our people into a meatgrinder we had no place in, and pretend like we only started supporting in 1942. There are arguments for both sides, but stop acting like every single American disregards the first 3 fucking years of war that happened before the USA got involved.
Isn’t Churchill quoted as saying he “slept the sleep of the saved” the night Japan attacked America because he knew Japan bringing America into the war essentially ensured the west’s victory?
I just finished a book about the Blitz and Churchill and another book specifically about the Roosevelt-Churchill relationship. Germany may have fallen without US intervention but once US joined it was over and Churchill knew that. The US was turning out a fair amount of materiel before declaring war but once they got fully rolling it was a crazy amount of tanks, ships, guns and aircraft. Without US involvement the victory would have been almost all Russias on the continent and very likely the post war Europe looks a lot different.
I have read the same about the Pacific theatre. Once US got the military industry rolling, Japan had no chance. Yamamoto knew this (he had studied and served in US) and tried to warn about it, to no avail.
Absolutely. You can just compare the tonnage and capability of the various Vinson Naval acts prior to Pearl Harbor compared to what Japan could afford and build.
Many people in Japan could see this and in fact there’s an argument that they triggered the historical attack on Pearl Harbor as there was a very small window when the IJN had a chance to prevail.
I’d be interested in the argument about how or why Germany would have fallen without US intervention.
However I completely agree that has the Soviets still overrun the Germans, all of Europe would have become the Eastern bloc as there no reason nor anything to stop them at Berlin.
The first one, about Churchill and The Blitz was Splendid and Vile by the guy who did Devil in the White City. It was solid, not great but not bad. Some fun backstory to the Churchill family and other friends/colleagues woven into the German bombing campaign. Solid pop-history book. Idk how I never knew Rudolph Hess up and flew to Britain solo in 1941 to solidify a peace because his astrologist told him May was a month to get things done!
Franklin and Winston is a dual biography of sorts dealing with early lives of both FDR/Churchill but mostly focusing on their pre-war relationship and beyond. Both books are very clearly pro-Churchill but I think it’s hard to pick him apart during the war years. He really was the man for the job in the UK. It’s cool to see the dynamic between them and how integral it was to the early and mid war years. The UK is clearly on the decline so FDR ghosts Churchill but Winnie gets him back by living way longer. Overall the better book for sure.
America definitely did have a dog in the war before Pearl Harbor. It was already sending aid to Britain and the USSR as well as embargoing Japan, keeping it from getting much needed materials for its war machine. If Pearl Harbor didn’t happen something else would have and America would still be in the war
The US was providing aid to the allied nations, yes. Were we involved in the war directly or did our civilians even want to be involved in the war? Debatable, but history shows that we didn't really want to be until we were attacked. It was inevitable, but unwanted.
Generally if you’re not the one declaring the war you don’t want the war. Even if you’re the one declaring it there’s probably a good chance you still don’t want it
We sent 26 guys from Bedford, Virginia to France and I think 19 of them died on Omaha Beach. That alone is reason enough to say that the USA gave a lot for this war that they didn’t have to. Russia sacrificed way more men but that’s also their main strategy for war fighting apparently.
I think a lot of (vast majority) Europeans are grateful for the support the US came with after being dragged into the war, it's just a little strange, for Europeans, how focused on profits and growth the US was (also after the war) compared the human principles. I don't judge, and frankly, I'm not sure the Allies would have prevailed if the US had decided to join Britain and France when the Nazis invaded Poland - the industrial War Machine in the US was much less impressive in 1939 compared to 1943, the US built up a very impressive display, and their superior production and logistical excellence proved vital in both the European and Pacific scenarios - something I'm unsure could have been pulled of 3 years prior.
In human language and communication, it is very normal to speak in generalities about large groups as taking the time to distinguish each and every individual with a differing opinion or behavior would be impossible.
Or at least it used to be, before everyone on the internet became an overly literal and exhaustingly semantic cunt
Thank you, stolen name. Nobody expects you to acknowledge each and every single person and their opinion. That's a ridiculous proposition. I merely offered my outlook, because it seems like the resounding opinion is that every American is uneducated, and I oppose that sentiment.
I think that has a lot more to do with the 70+ years AFTER the war...especially the last decade. The rest of the world often equates a country with their leadership and the last decade has certainly been the lowest point in US history.
Your commentary might be about WW2, but you are also trying to draw a correlation between getting into the war late and the "looks and groans" you get as an American. That is the part that has no basis in reality unless you were getting these looks in the early 1940s. There are plenty of reasons for those reactions and the majority of them likely have NOTHING to do with WW2. The people giving you those looks likely werent even alive at that time and i'm sure they could care less.
You are wanting the rest of the world to be eternally grateful for something that happened 70+ years ago instead of acknowledging everything that has happened since
Because majority of Americans especially online think theyre the reason europe won the war, muricans have an awful problem with thinking theyre the best at everything, claim victory of ww2 when they didnt do the winning they came in at the end
Wasn't all that "financial and material support" coming with debt attached to it? In the early years of WW2 Britain was just blowing through its reserves to borrow money. The USA wasn't doing much to proactively help at all other than lending money to profit.
Maybe I just don't know enough about the period, can you tell me specifically what support the USA gave that was purely to help?
Goodwill and reputational gains from WW2 are not eternal nor should it be. We should continue to act in a manner befitting that reputation if we want to be treated as such. I think the current dislike for the US has more to do with US political climate and older generation in Europe not being represented well in social media.
What’s ironic is Europeans complained in America waited three years to enter the war. That American soldiers weren’t willing to die to protect European soil. They said a tyrannical dictator was trying to annex land of their neighbors.
Well, here we are now in 2026, and it’s ironic. A dictator is invading Europe, Ukraine, starting years ago, and where are the European troops? Why don’t they want to die for the Ukrainians?
A dictator threatening Greenland to the point of the EU having secret "phone and aide free" meetings to discuss defending Greenland and Europe militarily and economically?
Basically the general population is ignorant on all the nuances, and only mildly informed about the side theyre biased to be in support of already. Its pretty typical human nature unfortunately.
As a European - well yeah, most European countries who were under Nazi influence haven't seen one American in that age. They just haven't been there. Yeah nice about Asia or whatever I just don't understand the saying "you'd be speaking German if we didn't come" because they never did come to most countries under Nazis. It was a huge area. Axis held the area from Africa to Finland, yes Germany and France have famous names and sound great in history books but I mean come on.
A German general wrote a book after the war, where he flatly said the combination of the eastern front manpower drain and the western strategic bombing campaign was too much for Germany to overcome. Germany never lost a battle in WWII where the odds were even. They frequently won even when outnumbered.
There is a big difference between Pacific theater and both West and East theater.
In the Pacific theater war happened outside USA civilian land. So they were fighting "abroad". Its expected that less than 500 USA civilians died on american soil or american occupied territories. In europe each front (not even theater) had the numbers in millions. (Most deaths were merchant ships sunken in both atlantic and pacific)
Not a single american village, town or city was directly affected (apart from military bases and coastal zones). Europe did not had the same luck.
Its not that europeans dont care about the pacific theater. But calling it an american suffering is a bit "insulting". Yes it was important, but while many european people had families affected by bombings, at most americans had family that served as a soldier. Most of the WW2 and its proxy wars happened from france to western soviet union. North Africa. Some colonial wars. China, japan and soviet union. The only continent without mainland wars was the american continent (both north and south).
So its not devaluing the importance. But making WW2 an american centric thing is something that most europeans will dismiss and ignore. Not because it was less important but because it had a different impact magnitude.
Even before Pearl harbor (years after ww2 started) usa industry was still not focused in war. Even Rosevelt had made comments about it after Pearl Harbor, stating that the usa industry needed to stop being focused in luxury of living and they were forced to let go the way of living of before. And still the biggest suffering was war drafting and losing factories from building fridges or cars.
This is also why many europeans also enjoy russian movies. Not because of propaganda (because they are filled with it) but because they depict the suffering of the commoner instead of the valiant hero that saved everyone.
Yeah this feels like the key difference. Beating Germany was probably 50% Russia, 20% Britain, 10% USA, and 20% US Arms exports. Japan was 100% USA.
Also, if you remove the USA from the equation, the Axis wins, no question. Britain would not have been able to hold out without US supplies, and Russa wouldn't have been able to hold of Germany and Japan at the same time.
Remove Russia from the equation on the other hand, and the war is a lot longer, but pretty much guaranteed to still be a victory for the Allies. Without the bomb, Germany might hold onto the mainland, but Britain and the USA would never fall, and Hitler would have probably ballsed it up sooner or later anyways. With the bomb, Germany loses.
It's also worth remembering that the sheer number of Russians who died in the war wasn't a noble sacrifice, it was a tragedy and the result of Soviet incompetence. Fighting Germany alone was never going to be easy, but they could have been a lot more effective early on and saved a lot of lives if Stalin wasn't such a paranoid asshole.
To be fair that's basically like saying that a baseball team sucks because they give up 5 runs when already down 11-2. USA already did a lot of softening up at that point
Those were far from their elite troops, though. The elite troops were the guys who steamrolled Singapore at the outset of the war. Long gone by the time USSR was in Manchuria.
Yeah. Kind of. But the Soviets steamrolled the Japanese out of Asia. They would have taken Japan as well with the sheer number of troops they had, but the Japanese surrendered to the US first in order to stop that happening. The US were in no position to mount a successful invasion. Under no circumstances would the Soviets have let the emperor live, and he knew that. The US would. They wanted to stop communism. It's why the emperor was never put on trial for war crimes after. They needed to keep Japan stable.
The Soviets were only ever in the position to attack Japanese positions in Asia because of American support, though. Without American materiel they may not have beaten Germany, and certainly would've had too much on their hands to look east.
I think people work too hard to attribute credit to a single country winning the war, when we can see the war was won as quickly as it was because the allies worked together pretty effectively. USSR took the strongest body blows from the Nazis, Britain's resistance kept Germany from ever being able to dedicate all their resources to invading Russia, and the US provided everyone with essentially limitless supplies all while leading the charge in the Pacific. It was dope teamwork, especially given who was involved.
Sure, US handled everything in the Pacific...especially if you ignore it was on the backs and taking the credit of the Anzacs and every other Allied/British Pacific Forces activities and operations...they handled everything!
The US handled business in the Pacific — after supplying Japan with metal, aircraft parts, oil, and other materials necessary for their war of aggression in China and elsewhere in Asia. Events like the Rape of Nanking were reported in the media soon after they occured, but the US continued to supply Japan with crucial war materials.
Accounts of the Rape of Nanking, including pictures, were seen in the US. People refused to believe something so horrific could be true. Many people refused to believe reports of Nazi death camps as well. Something about human psychology causes many of us to ignore or deny information we don't want to believe.
Yeah, by nuking civilians, the U.S. would have had more casualties in the Pacific than in Europe and Africa if it weren’t for the Soviet invasion and the nukes.
Damn its almost like our countries teach our own history, and the other side of the world isnt really the focus. Goes both ways. The USA wasn't insignificant, but we didn't carry the war. Every country did its part, every country sacrificed. Some gave more than others.
I had to watch out for landmines when I was picking mushrooms and berries with grandma lol. Trenches and old helmets with bullet holes and bunkers were so awesome to discover. Soooo much old ammunition laying around in the woods. My city got blockaded for 872 days and so many relatives starved to death. The war was absolute shit. My country did the usual - throwing its humans at the enemy as cannon meat. Horrible shit.
German-speaking population leaving in 1939 at Hitler's call
Russians (Soviets) occupying Estonia in 1940 after Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
Germans occupying Estonia in 1941
Russians re-occupying us in 1944
All of those had devastating effects to the society.
Men were drafted to both armies. There were Estonian units in Waffen-SS and the Red Army, fighting each other directly.
The first Russian occupation showed us how bad it can be with mass deportations and proletariat rule. Thus most of the intelligent / well-off citizens tried to escape to West before the second occupation. My gandfather ended up in the US and had a successful career there as a space engineer - but we had no knowledge about it as all communication was cut. For us he was simply "lost in the war, maybe alive".
We got lucky. We somehow retained our language, culture and country. The history saved us and our identity.
I am sure all nations and places have their own stories to tell.
Exactly. I mean I don't idealise any country in this because everyone was just taking advantages and many countries act like they weren't voluntarily under Nazi control but the nazi influence wasn't just Germany or whatever. It was a huge huge part of Europe and Americans haven't even been here. Noone has seen them they practically came to take some pictures in some known cities. I'm not hating on US, I like their films but them saying "you'd be speaking German if we didn't come" is a pure fantasy.
Most Americans know the war was going on long before we arrived. There is the common misconception that we solely ended it. I agree Hollywood has always been problematic to history.
Well we also often forget that the United States was THE main western belligerent in the Eastern campaign, and they entered that campaign only 2 and a half years after the (European) start of WW2.
The US was really heavily involved for a LONG time. It's not like we just came in to the war in 1944 with D-Day. The US got men into North Africa as soon as they could and they were fighting pretty harshly against Japan from the jump.
If we use the 1939 date as the start of the war, the US was in the war much longer than they weren't, and they were by and large the main combatant of an entire campaign.
The real problem is that in the United States, we glorify our experiences in Europe WAY more than what we did in the Pacific. It was a lot easier to vilify the Nazis than to wash away the Nukes we dropped on Japan, Japanese internment camps, and the entire Japanese reconstruction government.
Ngl it shouldn’t actually be that hard to justify the nukes we dropped on Japan or Japanese reconstruction. The internment camps, yeah that’d be pretty tough to justify & shouldn’t be anyways even if we could, but considering the brutality of the Japanese at the time, and of their leadership, I think justifying those 2 things would not be hard at all with some basic info
They were not Allies most of the war lol if we say 1939 start in Europe then you have them working together 1939/1940/ half 1941. Then at war half 1941/42/43/44/45. Soooo unless you can’t count or making up dates then that’s not true.
I mean part of the reason the war broke out was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Soviets were also trading heavily with the Germans. While yes they weren’t aligned for a majority of the war they were aligned for an extended period of time.
Which only happened after the allies did not intervene in Czechoslovakia, which the U.S.S.R. was very willing to do. With hindsight it's easy to say that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a mistake but at the time it made sense for the U.S.S.R. In 1939 the Soviets always knew there was going to be a war with Nazi Germany, they just did not know if it was going to be 1940 or 1945 and if the allies were going to sit back or not.
The point was that the U.S.S.R. believed that Britain and France were content with facilitating a confrontation between Germany and the U.S.S.R. by not intervening when Germany made eastwards expansions, even if those countries were in principle protected by a military guarantee.
France and Britain declined to guarantee to the Soviets that they would intervene in case of a German invasion of the Baltic states or Romania aligning with Germany (which was certainly on the horizon in 1938). In case of an invasion of the Baltic states or a Romania that fully joined the Axis, there would almost certainly have been a military confrontation between the U.S.S.R. and Germany without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
But yeah, calling the French and British "the Allies" is indeed an anachronism. But that not is not related to the point I was making at all.
True, but they were their allies at the start of the war and were happy to continue to be their allies until the Nazis invaded them. Stalin was entirely fine with Hitler until he turned his attention away from the UK. You can’t wash that stain away.
Agreed. It was just a point of reference why they don’t get more international recognition for their sacrifices during WW2. They were pushing an agenda to put western powers against each other assuming it would help them in the end by weakening them only for it to bite them in the ass. They were hoping to cripple western economies and inspire more communist rebellions.
This is true. However unlike the Soviet treaties, none of the UK treaties included terms for the UK to get land for itself, they were purely “okay, you can do this without provoking war with us providing that’s all you do”. They were stupid attempts at appeasing Hitler in the hopes of avoiding war but none of them were treaties that gave the UK land or benefitted the UK directly other than hoping to avoid war.
The UK is also one of the few countries that entered WW2 without needing to be attacked directly first or by invading others. They declared war to honor their commitments made to other nations. They also stood to gain very little by going to war and in many ways knew their role in the world would be diminished as a result of the war which is frankly one of the reasons they tried so hard to avoid it.
I mean while the carving up of Poland was really bad. I wouldn't call the relationship as an alliance. Hitler hated Stalin and Stalin hated Hitler, however the Soviet Union wasn't in anyway ready to fight a war against the Nazis. Military production ramped up but it was going to take time and Stalin saw this as a way to delay that confrontation.
This is the usual explanation and it’s true they hated each other but if carving up Poland was really about delaying the German invasion you’d expect Stalin to see Germany mobilising on that border and start preparing to defend from an invasion. Instead of bunkering up in his lodgings in denial
This is why Stalin was such a contradiction and his paranoia went crazy when it happened. He thought his rivals were gonna oust him and had to be persuaded out of his lodgings that that was not the case. He's a a very weird and horrible person.
It's more like this
Hitler: yo Stalin! If I gave you a part of Poland, do you promise to stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours? I still hate you mate but I need you out of the picture.
Stalin: huh....oh yeah fine why not......thanks?
Hitler: cool mate
Hitler & Stalin: hehehehe sucker
This is a dumb down version but you get the point. Germany and Soviet didn't join each other it was just an agreement that the Soviet Union would stay neutral......until the Germans broke it and made the same mistake that Napoleon did.
The Time cover was who had the biggest impact in the world that year and it was critical of Hitler. You're just spouting commie slop that you havent even looked into to confirm. Sad
Not really. Most of the world was just not willing to go to war with Hitler
But the USSR is unique in giving the Nazis a bunch of oil. Which was vital to their ability to make war. The USSR was by far germanys most useful ally in world war 2 before they bit the hand that fed them
They weren't allies. Stalin had plans to invade Germany in a few years. The Germans assumed that Stalin would invade in a few years. Those two ideologies couldn't co-exist in the long run. It suited both of them not to fight for a while -- Germany hoping it would roll up the Brits before they had to take on the USSR, the USSR hoping they could rebuild their army before they had to take on Germany.
Also, what the heck is this doing in Peter Explains the Joke?
An alliance today does not mean you don’t intend to fight later down the road. Even as WW2 went into its final days, I don’t think any western power thought they wouldn’t end up needing to fight the soviets despite their temporary alliance to defeat Hitler. The soviets tried to play both sides hoping that we’d tire each other out making it easier to invade later. They help create that situation at the start of the war thinking it would benefit them only for it to ultimately bite them in the ass.
Also, No idea what this discussion is doing here ether.
They weren't allies. They were under a ceasefire treaty and a pact that traded intelligence and military training. In reality, they wanted to bomb the everloving shit out of eachother but didn't want the drama. That is, until Germany initiated a blitzkrieg against them.
Amazing non allies agree to mutually invade and split up polish territory. Was it an official alliance? No but typically when you sign pact that results in mutually invading and splitting up another country it basically functions as an alliance. Short lived as it was.
It was much more ambivalent than that. It was under the USSR impulsion that for example, the French communist party allied with the rest of the left to try to get the country ready for a war, and make sure they would not fall to fascism. It failed, but basicaly before Munich the Soviets were acting in the right direction
America was fine with most of the war until the Nazis started embargo’s on our trades. We were happy to take in all the cash from the struggles and only got involved when they stopped us printing money.
Fine with the war, yeah probably, America was super isolationist back then and while they probably wanted Britain and the western powers to win they also weren’t ready to commit any forces to that effort. Even after Pearl Harbor, I think most Americans were reluctant to get involved in Europe until Hitler ended that debate by declaring war on the US and honoring their Japanese alliance. Had they not done that getting a war declaration on Germany through congress would have been harder. That said, it basically opened the floodgates of lend lease and war time production. We were building lots of military supplies but that tonnage skyrocketed once war declared.
German aviation and tank industry was only made possible through the training testing and other r&d that happened in Russia before ww2 so that alliance is a bit long standing then just 39.
To be fair, most of the axis can be described that way. Each of the major axis powers were working towards their own ends and frequently were causing problems for their allies in the process. There really wasn’t any consensus or unified goals on that side and no real technology sharing occurred.
Let's not forget they only broke the alliance when Hitler surprise attacked them, it's not like they were having second thoughts or broke up with Germany. In fact
quite the opposite
They downplay all the allies. The UK had just under 400k military deaths across numerous theatres fighting the Axis powers, plus around, 70'000 civilian casualties.
Majority of Russians believe the war started in 1941 (Nothing bad happened in the Baltics, Eastern Poland and Finland before that of course). So pick your poison, I guess.
Not really but go off I guess. Most US made movies simply focus on the Pacific theater or American units at Normandy.
Band of Brothers I thought did a decent job of showing how much of the invasion planning was coordinated with European powers. Americans logistics/supplies was the major contribution and absolutely needed for an Allied win; the US was the moral support but critical.
Nah, its really because they were part of the Axis Powers until the meth got the better of Hilter.
The cannon fodder that died "heroically" at Stalingrad had "heroically" slaughtered Poles when they invaded from the east at the same time the Nazi's invaded from the West.
For some of the Allies, the fight was against fascism. For others, it was just a bad breakup.
Ya its unfortunate - but members of my own family (I'm American, and deeply fond of history), will aggressively argue that America was the first country to fight the Nazis. As if it's not an objective reality that we joined the war late. They will insist that it was America vs Germany & Japan. It's late stage American exceptionalism. Which is honestly pretty worrying, because they will reshape history and reality to meet their ideology.
Be so frr, most ppl outside America know the top one isnt true, can we stop saying ppl when we really mean americans, its so americentric, they taught us about how extremely vital the ussr was here in the uk, and tbh most of my Sri Lankan friends didn’t even know what ww2 was💔
I wrote a paper in college and thought I was being edgy by pointing out the hypocrisy of the US joining WW2 because of the holocaust while having Japanese people in internment camps. My teacher was like, “US didn’t give a fuck about the holocaust. We only joined the war because they started fucking with our money/trade routes by setting the u boat brigade.”
I felt stupid but also that’s the most American shit ever. We don’t give a fuck until it starts messing with our bottom line $$$.
The Holocaust wasn't a thing until we joined the war. Nobody knew what the Nazis were doing until the camps were freed and it's pretty bogus for a teacher to explain it that way.
There was absolutely knowledge of the Holocaust well before the war even started; nations just didn’t care to intervene, and many outright supported it. Germany expelled and displaced a large amount of their Jewish population to places like France, Poland, South Africa, the Americas, and Mandatory Palestine, who shared the stories of discrimination and violence against them, the Nuremberg Laws were public knowledge, and several countries even mirrored them to align closer to Germany, and the November pogroms (Kristallnacht) made international news. The camps in their final iteration and the Holocaust of Bullets in the occupied territories weren’t as widely known, but the writing was on the wall well before any shots were fired.
Displacement might have been known, which is common in war, but the extent of the Holocaust was absolutely not known by the allies. U.S joined in 1941 and that's roughly when counter intelligence reports started to trickle in.
It may be the most "American" shit ever but it's also a lie. The US joined the war because Japan attacked them because the US had completely embargoed what Japan needed for their war machine (scrap steel and oil) in response to their warmongering. Then Germany immediately declared.
If the US completely didn't give a fuck before Pearl Harbor, they probably wouldn't have choked Japan with an embargo so existential they had no rational options but to attack an army basically everyone knew was 10 times better. So it's more like Japan attacked us for FDR's administration intentionally handicapping the US's own money/trade routes in a way that basically guaranteed an attack.
Nobody declared war on account of the Holocaust, and the death camps part of the Holocaust began between July 41 (Barbarossa) and the Wannsee Conference in Jan 42 , a period in which the US joined for separate reasons anyway (the first death camp officially opened the same month as Pearl Harbor). But in any case, the FDR admin was poking the bear with embargoes against Japan, immediately rewrote its Neutrality Acts in 1939 to allow aid to France and Britain, had destroyers for bases in 1940, and was fully in on lend-lease by early 41.
German-American fascists at Madison Garden notwithstanding, any analysis that sees FDR as anything other than a staunch antifascist on the world stage and a pro-Allied partisan from the outset, restrained only by an extremely war weary and isolationist domestic political reality, is trying to "America bad" too close to the Sun.
I felt stupid but also that’s the most American shit ever. We don’t give a fuck until it starts messing with our bottom line $$$.
And now you can just feel stupid for thinking that not giving a fuck and not being willing to send young men to their death for a war on another continent is the same thing
It’s because the majority of western films are American productions. Of course most American movies made for American audiences are going to be about the American perspective of WWII.
This isn’t true. We are taught proper ww2 history in school and know about Soviet and other allied contributions to the war. Hollywood doesn’t represent US education.
I mean anyone that sees a movie and thinks it’s an accurate portrayal of anything is an idiot. Movies are made to entertain not be a replacement for scholarly research.
Well, it’s more because of how much America drove the reconstruction of Britain and some of Europe, and ultimately worked to reunify Germany. The narrative of USA as a savior was spun in retrospect because that was the mood at the time even if it was exaggerated back into the war itself.
I dont know anybody that believes that honestly. Its pretty commonly known that we were just one of the participants on the western front and our major plays were against Japan. Shit even call of duty portrays it accurately lol
I have never encountered an American who wasn’t aware the war was active for years before we got involved. Its incredibly necessary backround to learning about Pearl Harbor and D Day, which are up there with the Holocaust and Iwa Jima as core parts of our history classes.
To be fair, a lot of WW2 prior to the US' involvement and D-Day landings were allied losses after allied losses.
I don't want to downplay the allied European powers, but they were getting stomped in the first 2 years of the war, mostly because of France's abysmal preparation and the UK's poor logistics (not entirely their fault). After Dunkirk and until D-Day the war in the West was primarily Germany vs. the USSR and the North African campaign.
Nobody in the U.S. believes WW2 started when the U.S. joined the war because we were bombed by Japan. Its common knowledge that the U.S. was dragged into it by a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.
I live in the US and that is not what I was taught in my hostory class.
I was taught we sat on our asses while Britain and France suffered for over 2 years years until Japan decided to bomb pearl harbor. That got the rest of the country up in arms.
Rosevelt wanted to join the war sooner but congress happened (per the usual standard here). He did quietly help where he could though.
And the movies on the eastern front make it sound like the soviets are the only ones fighting. Your point?
No shit a country makes a bunch of movies about its own contribution in war. And when focusing on its own contribution, and specifically the soldiers view, its going to be how America got into the war. Not how the war started.
I'm sure they're out there, but I've never met anyone that thinks this lol. We played a big role in the liberation, but not much else on the western front.
While it far from started when the IS landed, the liberation of Western Europe started with US involvement. Allies foot in large numbers together but the IS mobilized about 16 million people, doubling the Allied Army on the Western front.
What rarely gets talked about is China’s involvement on the Pacific theater
No one thinks that, you just base your worldview on stereotypes the way you accuse Americans of doing.
Like literally nobody thinks what you said. You made it up in your head
Guess ya gotta find weird ways to feel superior when your wife is seen as “a set of holes to fuck” by the men fucking her. In your own words none the less
The war wouldn't have started if the Soviets didnt start on the German side. And Britain and France were getting shitwrecked. Even with American logistical support.
This is an active discussion in American history classes. The “start” of WWII is discussed from the perspective of first engagement through Pearl Harbor. You’re right, American history books often cite the start as when the US joined the fight, but students discuss it as a developing situation and not a date to be memorized and moved on from. It’s a big part of our history and we talk about it in more detail than you’re suggesting. Many lively debates occur as students realize their books want them to use a date that is American-centric, and they are uncomfortable with that.
What? The US joins the war THE SAME YEAR the USSR does, 1941. Prior to that, the USSR was ACTIVELY AIDING the German, splitting Poland and the Baltic states in the process. While the US was actively aiding the UK and France by selling them much needed arms.
You are not wrong, but IMHO u/sherlip simply says that "most Americans don't know this". He talks about perception of the war, not about its real history.
This is one of those things that fell on the bell curve I think. Not an American but from the outside looking in, the US did everything it could, being an ocean away from any fronts and having a laughably small army prewar and already landing in Africa kicking the Italians in February 1943, barely 15 months since the war begins. If we count the Dolittle raid in 1942, it is barely 6 months since hostilities begin until the US hit an axis power capital.
World war II was a global war with everyone putting in maximum efforts. Any attempts at diminishing contributions from anyone is foley.
And u and the rest of the "less studied" of the world take our fucking movies as historically accurate. Plus we came in at the end and won 2 wars for all u guys. We dont start word wars we end them. 2 time champions of the world.
What Americans believe is that Europe fucked it all up and couldn't clean up their bullshit for themselves, same as WWI, and had to be bailed out by the US.
1.8k
u/TarJen96 9d ago
Some people exaggerating the US role in WW2, tankies downplaying the US role in WW2.